Federal Circuit IP

Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. 

By Caitlin Thireault Published April 15, 2026

Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. 

CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1794, Decided March 3, 2026 

(Prost, Clevenger, Taranto; Non-Precedential) 

 

Overview:  When known problems in the field are virtually a motivation to combine.  

Facts/Background 

  • Medivis filed an IPR challenging Novarad’s patent (11,004,271) under § 102 in view of Doo reference and § 103 in view of Doo and Amira references. 
  • The ’271 patent is directed to 3D medical augmented reality (AR) technology that projects data on a patient in real time. 
  • Doo teaches AR for medical applications, but displays data in 2D. 
  • Amira teaches displaying data in 3D, but not applying as AR. 
  • Because Doo only teaches 2D display, it does not anticipate the claims under § 102. 
  • Regarding § 103, Medivis argues that a POSITA would be motivated to “take advantage of” Amira’s visualization technology to enhance the medical imaging system of Doo. 
  • PTAB argues that the alleged motivation to combine is too vague and determines that the claims also survive § 103. 

Issue:  Whether the PTAB applied the correct standard for motivation to combine.  

Federal Circuit Analysis –  

  • Review: Whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. 
  • Substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding of no motivation to combine: 
  • Medivis provided an explicit reason to combine: it would be advantageous to combine Doo and Amira as it would enable Doo’s intraoperative medical imaging system to benefit from the functionality of Amira’s medical imaging.  
  • Doo discusses problems with surgeons having to look away from a patient to a screen displaying data, thus the problem the’271 patent addresses was recognized in the field.  

Holding:  Reversed in part and remanded 

Takeaways 

  • Motivation to combine is flexible (and a low bar): 
  • “Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed” citing Intel Corp 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023).